BBC in another Double Standards shock...

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
BBC in another Double Standards shock...

...any viewers of BBC breakfast will have seen the interview with former Israeli President (who's name has escaped me) about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the interviewer says "One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

So the Taliban who murdered 6000 in the WTC were Freedom fighters then, of course, why didn't we see this earlier

Nice to see BBC impartiallity is truly dead and buried

I saw it at about 4:30 - was a cut from "Hard Talk". Normally this is crap, on this occasion there was some good stuff on itNetanyahu actually started to come out with some sense for a while, but his Mossad earpiece must have reminded him not to, cos he soon retreated to blinkered normality The Taliban et al, of course, were indeed hailed as "freedom fighters" throughout the 80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union.Where's the double standard? Cliche maybe, but can't see any particular inconsistency

Russ, I saw that interview and was slightly 'surprised' but it's the "another man's" bit - sure, we in the 'civilised' world see these scum as terrorists of course. The other man tho' is the middle eastern nutter who will see them as freedom fighters.I'd say that's pretty impartial, and unfortunately correct!

So 6000 people died at the hands of freedom fighters, OK guys, glad that's all cleared up then BTW What are the Taliban fighting freedom from exactly?

Russ wrote

So 6000 people died at the hands of freedom fighters, OK guys, glad that's all cleared up then

For chrissakes Russ, read what we said, please!!!!

basically he said that the headlines in the newspapers about bombing the WTC were said to have been applauding the events, not chastising them.If you want I can prolly get hold of the transcript of what Netanyahu said.

What ARE (not were, ARE) the Taliban figthing for freedom from?

Blondie wrote

basically he said that the headlines in the newspapers about bombing the WTC were said to have been applauding the events, not chastising them.If you want I can prolly get hold of the transcript of what Netanyahu said.

Yes please...i do recall Netenyahu mentioning (OK this isn't exactly unbiased) that Arafat was condeming the attacks in English, but his national rag was applauding themSo?BTW Where was Jeremy Bowen? I like Jeremy he's a v. funny bloke and an excellent interviewer

Russ wrote

What ARE (not were, ARE) the Taliban figthing for freedom from?

Russ, I dare say 99.9% of them don't know themsleves.The Independent have had a lot of really good info on-line about what's been going on - makes good reading on the subject. Not sure if it's still there now though.

Russ wrote

What ARE (not were, ARE) the Taliban figthing for freedom from?

Freedom from poverty and that they want to take over the world, not by working hard but by violence and fear, and they don't like people like us from working hard and take over the world, so they are gonna take over the world to stop us from doing it, because world domination is bad....Double standards eh?

Russ wrote

I like Jeremy he's a v. funny bloke and an excellent interviewer

Agreed - top bloke and very much in the 'been there done that' category. Talking of which I reckon he's shagged Sophie - bastard.

Gromit wrote

Russ, I dare say 99.9% of them don't know themsleves.The Independent have had a lot of really good info on-line about what's been going on - makes good reading on the subject. Not sure if it's still there now though.

Thankyou, and therein lies the problem An IMPARTIAL broadcaster would condemn terrorism in General wherever it is. I am not saying that Israel is blameless, no way, having a right wing PM is not the best decision ever made, BUT as Netenyahu said "Terrorists kill Civillians, Freedom fighters kill soldiers" so why is it that Palestinian suicide bombers, and the guys who shot 4 women at a Tel Aviv bus stop are freedom fighters, and the hijackers of the airliners which destroyed the WTC and killed 6000 people are not?Is there a difference as a result of Geography?

Gromit wrote

Agreed - top bloke and very much in the 'been there done that' category. Talking of which I reckon he's shagged Sophie - bastard.

What pissed me off was the poor fella being mugged, how awful Blondie will be able to tell us what he's like in real life

Russ wrote

Thankyou, and therein lies the problem Is there a difference as a result of Geography?

Absolutely - depends where you're coming from both literally and idealogically. Trouble is, it's not consistent with a lot of these people and they'll describe the various factions in ways to suit their own views.

Gromit wrote

Absolutely - depends where you're coming from both literally and idealogically. Trouble is, it's not consistent with a lot of these people and they'll describe the various factions in ways to suit their own views.

Pleased you agree You summed it up perfectly, so why can't the BBC in their 'supposed impartiality' see this, and not get involved in other peoples view point.The Dictionaries describe impartial as:

Quote

impartial \Im*par"tial\, a. [Pref. im- not + partial: cf. F. impartial.] Not partial; not favoring one more than another; treating all alike; unprejudiced; unbiased; disinterested; equitable; fair; just. --Shak.Jove is impartial, and to both the same. --Dryden.A comprehensive and impartial view. --Macaulay. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------impartial adj 1: showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" [syn: fair] [ant: partial] 2: free from undue bias or preconceived opinions; "an unprejudiced appraisal of the pros and cons"; "the impartial eye of a scientist" [syn: unprejudiced] [ant: prejudiced] Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

and this they failed to do this morning

Gromit wrote

Agreed - top bloke and very much in the 'been there done that' category. Talking of which I reckon he's shagged Sophie - bastard.

Why do you think I decked him the other day?

Russ wrote

So 6000 people died at the hands of freedom fighters, OK guys, glad that's all cleared up then BTW What are the Taliban fighting freedom from exactly?

I heard the latest numbers that were missing from the WTC was nearer 3000 but that is by the by.I remember the IRA being described as freedom fighters in the US NOT THAT LONG AGOBut the statement is about freedom fighters is true depending on which side you are on.The Taliban are muslim extremists they feel that thier holy land (Saudi) is being polluted by infidels being there ie the US. That is why they and MR OBL get on so well as that is his MAIN problem.The guys that fought the Russians during the 80's (Muhadjin...spl) are more like the Northern alliance is now ie a tyrannical regime which for the normal Afghan people is and was far worse that the Taliban has been.The Taliban was a group which started in the universities/schools (Bloody students) which felt that the Muslim faith was being diluted and wanted a return to greater religeous values and that is essentially what they have done.Has anyone noticed that the direction of this attack has moved from attacking OBL and Al keida (spl) to the Taliban that supports him???? The fact that the Taliban supports OBL is not as important IMHO as the fact that OBL and Al Keida have been blamed for the bombing of the WTC. There are many governments that support terrorist orginisations least of all the UK and US (Or maybe thay are freedom fighters you will have to remind me).By attacking the Taliban the coalition will generate more support from the Arab nations for the jihad had they bombed OBL they would have been understood more i feel.

Russ wrote

Pleased you agree You summed it up perfectly, so why can't the BBC in their 'supposed impartiality' see this, and not get involved in other peoples view point.The Dictionaries describe impartial as....and this they failed to do this morning

I think you have hoisted yourself with your own petard, sir! How can the BBC condemn someone as a terrorist and at the same time remain impartial? Surely "terrorist" is an emotive word - and branding someone as that is putting a slant on the news - i.e not remaining impartial.I would agree that BBC news is not impartial, as all they should do is report the news - no emotive spin, just the news - allowing people to make up their own mind.For instance, when Netenyahu said this morning "There will be no compromise", there was no corresponding interview with a Palestinian (though I think he damned himself, as usual)... spot my little hints of spin!

I just don't see what you're getting het up about Russ - making that statement (you know, the tired old cliche about freedom fighters) - I can't see where that involves double standards at allAnyway, how is an interview of anyone impartial? It's the job of the interviewer to put the hard questions to the interviewee and to try and put him on the spot. Do you see Paxman being impartial? Don't think so.Shame you didn't see the whole interview - thought it was pretty good actually and Netanyahu gave a decent account of himself. Certainly put the Likud (for want of a better description) position much better than I've ever heard from the propaganda you usually get on this issue

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.freedom fighter: One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.When Netenyahu said "Terrorists kill Civillians, Freedom fighters kill soldiers" I suppose he meant 'in an ideal world'. As I interpret it, a freedom fighter can be a terrorist and a terrorist can be a freedom fighter. The word 'freedom' is misplaced, for sure. If a freedom fighter does not use terror I guess its simply called 'resistance'.The Syrian president Assad compared the Taliban to the French revolutional tribunal during the Reign of Terror. In a sense, I can relate to that as it refers to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. They both rule(d) with terror.However, Mr Assad then took issue with the definition of terrorism, refusing to class Palestinian militant groups as terrorists. I quote Assad (from the bbc):"We have made distinctions between terrorism and resistance, and insisted on the distinction between Islam and terrorism," he said. Fair enough about making the distinction between Islam and terrorism. But his message in general is that the Isrealis are terrorising the Palestinians, who are "freedom fighters' or 'resistance'. I can understand how a Palestinian can interpret the governing style of Isreal as somewhat terroristic, but the dickheads that run into a butchers or a bustop with a bomb strapped to their body are THE terrorists, whether their cause is resistance or not. Shows Assad's DOUBLE STANDARDS, doesn't it? He hasn't made the distinction between terrorism and resistance at all - he just interprets it to his own satisfaction. In doing so, he is contributing to the terrorable (terrible) image of Islam.The Dude

Never mind all this high-level semantics....what was Sophie wearing?BTW is Britain supporting terrorists/freedom fighters somewhere?

The usual BBC line is that on average they are impartial, but individual programmes may show partisan views. There will however be balancing views/progs elsewhere in the schedule.Stil sounds wrong, I mean Satanists always seem to come out badly

maddog wrote

The guys that fought the Russians during the 80's (The Taliban was a group which started in the universities/schools (Bloody students) which felt that the Muslim faith was being diluted and wanted a return to greater religeous values and that is essentially what they have done.

if you can call treating women worse than dogs, amputations, stonings, summary executions and a return to barbarism 'a return to religious values'. Most islamic scholars i have read are in agreement that the talebans interpretation of Islam is a very twisted one.

Gromit wrote

Talking of which I reckon he's shagged Sophie - bastard.

I'll bet he has as well - have you clocked the looks she gives him every so often?BTW everyone, the Taliban did NOT take part in fighting the Soviets; they were an invention of the Pakistani intelligence services who used them to unite the Pashtun population of Afghanistan (and Luton by the looks of it) against forces led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Hezb I Islami forces supported by Iran) and forces led by the likes of General Dostum, Masood, Najibullah etc who were from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to the Pashtun (who make up a large proportion of Pakistani society). Basically the Pakistanis wanted Afghanistan to fall within their sphere of influence but severely underestimated the effect that the illiterate peasants of the Taliban would have when they imposed their interpretation of a primitive desert tribal religion on the population of Afghanistan. The Taliban took Kabul in 1996, 7 years after the last Soviet troops left.HTH.

martinb wrote

if you can call treating women worse than dogs, amputations, stonings, summary executions and a return to barbarism 'a return to religious values'. Most islamic scholars i have read are in agreement that the talebans interpretation of Islam is a very twisted one.

My point is the Northern alliance killed more and persecuted the people far worse that the Taliban have since them taking power. It seems the Afghan people are stuck between a rock and a hardplace

agreed on that, they have been(going) through hell.

mmmmnnn Sophie

Dodgy Geezer wrote

I just don't see what you're getting het up about Russ - making that statement (you know, the tired old cliche about freedom fighters) - I can't see where that involves double standards at all

The interviewer stated to Netenyahu, that the Palestinians were freedom fighters, and thus crossed the threshold in my eyes. How can you remain impartial and give viewers an imparital report when the interviewer introduces their own viewpoint, that is just appaling interview techniques and poor journalism.ANyhow to more important matters, Sophie MMmmmmmm

Picture please!Thanx,The Dude

Sophie rayworth hubba hubba hubba

sophie? find her a bit rough, whose the cute blonde who does the war reports in the morning on the same programme?

Russ wrote

Sophie rayworth hubba hubba hubba

Look at those "let me give you a BJ lips" in that picture

Got any naked pics of her? The Dude

The Dude wrote

Got any naked pics of her? The Dude

www.wankoverbreakfast.com

wonder why my company firewall is blocking that site

Log in or register to post comments

Follow Visordown

Latest Bike News

Crash Media Group
Visordown is part of the CMG Full Throttle Network© : welcoming over 3 million consumers each month